RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency

RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 8:53:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: papassion It sure is comforting to know that when you starve to death because you have no work, that your last breath will be fresh air! Of course we want clean air and clean water but it has to be practical. Enviromentalists don't want neuclear, windmills or coal, and balk at anything that might endanger some insect or animal. What they want is something that is not yet invented. That is not a practical solution You having fun just making shit up? He didn't make it up, that requires intelligence and creativity. 10 to 1, he either got mass emailed by some rightie or he scammed it off face book.

thompsonx -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 8:59:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It was my understanding that a lot of American environmentalists were pro nuclear. Not the Sierra Club or the monkeywrenchers, but those with a bit more of a clue about engineering. Pro nuclear environmentalist???????? Isn't that a contradiction of terms?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 9:01:01 AM)
Not at all. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Pro nuclear environmentalist???????? Isn't that a contradiction of terms?

Moonhead -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 9:07:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It was my understanding that a lot of American environmentalists were pro nuclear. Not the Sierra Club or the monkeywrenchers, but those with a bit more of a clue about engineering. Pro nuclear environmentalist???????? Isn't that a contradiction of terms? Nope. Nuclear power plants put out a lot less pollutants than the ones that burn fossil fuels and don't contribute to ~~global warming~~Al Gore's unAmerican conspiracy theory at all.

Mupainurpleasure -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 9:36:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It was my understanding that a lot of American environmentalists were pro nuclear. Not the Sierra Club or the monkeywrenchers, but those with a bit more of a clue about engineering. obama pro nunclear as are many liberals because global warming is real and it is clean its just you dont build them where hurricanes hit or earthquakes or in the middle of huge cities. we do need ot stop kicking storage of spent fuel forward thoguh

thompsonx -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 10:33:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Not at all. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Pro nuclear environmentalist???????? Isn't that a contradiction of terms? A protocol has been discovered that will allow the safe storage of spent fuel? May I have a link?

thompsonx -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 10:36:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It was my understanding that a lot of American environmentalists were pro nuclear. Not the Sierra Club or the monkeywrenchers, but those with a bit more of a clue about engineering. Pro nuclear environmentalist???????? Isn't that a contradiction of terms? Nope. Nuclear power plants put out a lot less pollutants than the ones that burn fossil fuels and don't contribute to ~~global warming~~Al Gore's unAmerican conspiracy theory at all. You neglected to include the spent fuel rods in your calculation of pollutants. Until they can be safely stored "nuclear environmentalist" will continue to be a contradiction in terms.

Moonhead -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 12:59:33 PM)
They can be stored safely now. The problem is that "safely" and "on the cheap" aren't synonyms.

DomKen -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 1:34:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It was my understanding that a lot of American environmentalists were pro nuclear. Not the Sierra Club or the monkeywrenchers, but those with a bit more of a clue about engineering. I'm an environmentalist and I'm at least vaguely pro nukes. I think we should heavily regulate and inspect the operators but I'm in favor of building at least a few new nuclear power plants.

Moonhead -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 1:35:44 PM)
Don't tell me, tell thompsonx... [;)]

DomKen -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 1:36:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Don't tell me, tell thompsonx... [;)] why bother?

thompsonx -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 4:09:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead They can be stored safely now. The problem is that "safely" and "on the cheap" aren't synonyms. May I have a link to the site that validates that?

thompsonx -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 4:17:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It was my understanding that a lot of American environmentalists were pro nuclear. Not the Sierra Club or the monkeywrenchers, but those with a bit more of a clue about engineering. I'm an environmentalist and I'm at least vaguely pro nukes. I think we should heavily regulate and inspect the operators but I'm in favor of building at least a few new nuclear power plants. Perhaps you could tell us who has more nuclear power plants than anyone on the planet.

kalikshama -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 5:18:08 PM)
What about acts of sabotage more calamitous than Stuxnet? I'm all for nuclear power after all safety issues such as tsunami/hurricane/tornado/spent fuel rods are solved. Otherwise, the risks are too great. [image]http://news.discovery.com/earth/2011/03/14/nuclear-test-278x225.jpg[/image]

thishereboi -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/3/2012 6:19:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Don't tell me, tell thompsonx... [;)] why bother? See that, there are some things we can agree on.

Moonhead -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/4/2012 4:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead They can be stored safely now. The problem is that "safely" and "on the cheap" aren't synonyms. May I have a link to the site that validates that? There's more than just the one site, dear.

thompsonx -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/4/2012 5:18:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead They can be stored safely now. The problem is that "safely" and "on the cheap" aren't synonyms. May I have a link to the site that validates that? There's more than just the one site, dear. May we have a link to those sites that validate your opinion?

thompsonx -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/4/2012 5:20:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama What about acts of sabotage more calamitous than Stuxnet? I'm all for nuclear power after all safety issues such as tsunami/hurricane/tornado/spent fuel rods are solved. Otherwise, the risks are too great. [image]http://news.discovery.com/earth/2011/03/14/nuclear-test-278x225.jpg[/image] Here is a different approach to nuclear power. http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/19770/THORium-to-the-Rescue

thompsonx -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/4/2012 5:23:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Don't tell me, tell thompsonx... [;)] why bother? See that, there are some things we can agree on. It would make sense that two people of similar intellectual capacity would agree on this.

kalikshama -> RE: The Environmental Crucifixion Agency (5/4/2012 5:38:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead They can be stored safely now. Are you referring to dry cask storage? That's not meant to be a permanent solution - the casks only last for decades, not the millenia needed for the hazardous lifetime of the waste. And their use is not currently mandated in the US. Anyway, is nuclear power viable without subsidies?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875